Introduction
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005, is one of the most important social laws in India. Enacted to transform the constitutional promise of gender equality into a lived reality, the Act serves as a vital legal shelter for women enduring abuse within the domestic sphere. For a long time, legal remedies were mostly criminal, like Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which meant women had to go through long and painful police cases just to get basic protection. The PWDVA changed this by introducing a civil law framework designed to stop abuse quickly and protect a woman's right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
What makes this Act unique is how broadly it defines domestic abuse. It looks far beyond physical harm. By law, domestic violence now includes emotional, verbal, sexual, and economic abuse. Recognizing economic abuse is especially crucial because withholding money or necessities is often used as a tool to control women and destroy their independence.
To provide immediate help, the Act gives Magistrates power to issue several types of relief orders:
● Section 19 stops the abuser from forcing women to leave their own house. It protects her right to stay in the shared household.
● Section 20 Orders the respondent to pay for medical bills, lost income, and monthly living expenses, so financial hardship cannot be used to break the victim's resolve.
● Section 18 directs the respondent to stop all acts of violence, prohibits them from contacting the victim, and bars them from entering her workplace or school.
● Section 21 prevents the abuser from taking the children away or using custody battles to harass the mother.
● A woman can file for remedies under the PWDVA even if other civil or criminal cases are already ongoing between the parties.
● Section 12(5) states that courts should try to resolve cases within 60 days of the first hearing, and both sides have the right to appeal under Section 29.
The PWDVA was designed to be a complete legal safety net. It promises quick, accessible, and dignified relief to ensure that no woman is forced to endure violence in her own home.
Procedural Fatigue and the Execution Deficit: The Paradox of Post-Decree Attrition
The primary objective of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005, is to provide immediate legal protection and minimize the pain of victims. To achieve this, Section 20(3) empowers the Magistrate to order either a lump-sum amount or regular monthly maintenance payments based on the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, Section 23 gives power to the court the to pass interim orders to ensure urgent relief. Under Section 28, all proceedings under the PWDVA are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
While victims frequently secure interim and final maintenance orders, the real struggle begins during the implementation phase. In many instances, the respondent pays the ordered maintenance for the initial few months to demonstrate nominal compliance and subsequently stops making payments.
When monthly payments cease, the victim often waits one or two months in the hope that the respondent will resume compliance. However, to recover unpaid dues, she is compelled to initiate execution proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023. Proviso to Section 144(3) mandates that:
"No warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due."
This requirement forces the victim to re-enter a lengthier legal process:
Step 1: Respondent defaults on monthly maintenance payments
Step 2: Victim files an Execution Application under BNSS, 2023 (within the 1-year limitation period)
Step 3: Court examines evidence and financial records of non-payment
Step 4: Court issues a Show Cause Notice to the respondent
Step 5: Judicial evaluation of the respondent's grounds for non-payment
Step 6: Court issues a Distress Warrant or orders imprisonment up to one month (or until
payment is made)
To navigate this enforcement procedure, the woman must return to court, file a fresh Execution Application, re-engage legal counsel, compile bank statements, and endure months of additional delay.
This process creates severe financial and personal strain. The maintenance amount awarded is intended for basic survival. Yet, the cumulative costs of advocate fees, court expenses, and repeated travel often exceed the actual maintenance due. For women seeking minimal monetary support to meet basic daily needs, this creates a heavy economic burden. Frequent court appearances can also lead to employment loss for working women or severe distress for non-earning victims.
Faced with continuous financial strain and procedural delays, many women eventually stop attending court hearings, leading to the dismissal of their execution applications. This raises a fundamental question: Is the PWDVA truly protecting victims and reducing their pain, or is the execution mechanism undermining the statutory right to sustenance?
The Judicial View on Execution Delays
In Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Supreme Court of India accepted a painful reality that many domestic violence victims face, securing a maintenance order is often just half the battle. The Court pointed out that enforcing these orders frequently turns into a second, unbearable legal battle, where a piece of paper granting financial relief means very little if the victim is forced to wait years to see a single rupee. This endless back-and-forth in court doesn't just drain a woman's bank account; it causes severe mental and emotional exhaustion, better known as procedural fatigue.
To stop defaulting spouses from using bureaucratic delays as a weapon, the Supreme Court laid down clear, enforceable guidelines across the country:
● Courts must execute maintenance orders with the same legal force and urgency as a civil court for a money decree.
● Trial courts are mandated to resolve the execution of petitions within a tight timeframe of six months.
● When a spouse willfully refuses to pay, courts are empowered to attach his property, order civil detention, or even strike off his defense in the ongoing suit.
At its heart, the judgment reaffirmed that maintenance is not a favor or a piece of charity; it is a constitutional right of the victim to live with basic human dignity. By establishing these remedies, the Supreme Court made it clear that procedural delay is itself a form of systemic injustice, one that directly undermines the protective spirit of welfare laws like the PWDVA against the respondent.
In Poongodi & Anr. v. Thangavel (2013) 10 SCC 618, the Supreme Court of India dismantled a technical barrier that often pushes domestic violence survivors into procedural fatigue. The High Court had restricted the victims' recovery of maintenance arrears to just one year before filing their petition under Section 125(3) CrPC, treating the statutory limitation as a complete loss of unpaid dues. Reversing this narrow view, the Apex Court held that the obligation to pay maintenance is a continuing liability. The Court clarified that the one-year limitation merely restricts how quickly an arrest warrant can be issued, it does not erase the victim's core right to claim the entire unpaid amount. Furthermore, the Bench emphasized that sending a defaulting spouse to jail is a mode of enforcement, not a mode of satisfaction; serving time does not wipe out the financial debt owed to the victim. By refusing to let procedural deadlines be weaponized against vulnerable women, the Court ensured that technical delays do not starve survivors out of their rightful sustenance.
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353
The Supreme Court highlighted the human cost of enforcement delays, linking the non-payment of maintenance directly to the constitutional right to live with dignity under Article 21. The Court remarked:
"Any delay in payment of maintenance affects the right to live with the dignity of the wife. A delay of several years in deciding maintenance applications or executing orders defeats the very purpose of the social welfare legislation."
The Court stressed that trial courts must handle maintenance enforcement with a sense of urgency, as forcing a destitute woman to repeatedly pursue execution claims compromises her basic survival.
Policy Recommendations: Shift from Litigant Burden to State Action
To address this issue, judicial guidelines must direct the executive branch to establish a centralized state intermediary. This state-managed entity would maintain a comprehensive digital registry of all ongoing and prospective maintenance orders, meticulously recording the specific financial relief awarded under each decree.
Rather than leaving vulnerable victims to chase down payments on their own, the respondent would be legally mandated to deposit monthly installments directly into this centralized body, which would then transfer the funds straight to the victim's account. Crucially, if the respondent fails to pay in any given month, the executive body would step in and advance that month's financial support directly from a dedicated state welfare fund. This compassionate bridge mechanism guarantees an uninterrupted flow of sustenance, shielding women and children from the crippling financial anxiety caused by sudden, deliberate defaults.
When a respondent defaults or willfully evades payment, the state body, rather than the exhausted victim, must step into the legal ring to initiate execution proceedings automatically. Operating under the enforcement provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the entity can directly petition the court to issue garnishee orders, attach salaries, or seize and liquidate movable property. The victim is no longer forced to re-hire lawyers, gather proof, or endure painful, repeated court visits just to secure basic survival. By shifting both the administrative and financial burdens of enforcement from the individual to the state, this framework finally eliminates procedural fatigue and transforms paper decrees into genuine, dignified legal protection.
Comparative Jurisprudence: International Models of State-Intermediated Enforcement
United State Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, State Disbursement Units act as central state processing centers that track all child and spousal support orders and process payments to keep an accurate record. Once a court issues a support order, the state child support agency automatically sends an Income Withholding Order to the paying parent's employer to deduct support directly from their paycheck. If the paying parent falls behind on payments, the state can enforce the order on its own, intercepting tax refunds, freezing bank accounts, or suspending driver's and professional licenses,without forcing the receiving parent to go back to court.
In the UK, the Child Maintenance Service which runs under the Department for Work and Pensions, handles enforcement through its official "Collect and Pay" scheme. Under this setup, the government steps in as a middleman to collect payments from the paying parent and pass them along to the receiving parent. To enforce these payments without making parents go to court, the CMS has direct legal power to order employers to take money straight from a salary (Deduction from Earnings Orders) or instruct banks to pull funds directly from a bank account (Direct Deduction Orders). If unpaid debts build up, the CMS can independently take further action, including seizing and selling assets or suspending driver's licenses.
In Australia, Services Australia manages child support enforcement under the Child Support Act 1988 by tying recovery directly into the national tax system. Through the official "Child Support Collect" scheme, unpaid support becomes a legal debt owed directly to the Australian Government, taking the pressure off the receiving parent to handle enforcement. Working hand-in-hand with the Australian Taxation Office , the agency can automatically instruct employers to garnish wages, intercept tax refunds, seize bank funds, and issue departure prohibition orders to prevent international travel, all without forcing the receiving parent to take the matter back to court
Conclusion
To truly protect vulnerable women, India must take the heavy burden of enforcing maintenance orders under the PWDVA and BNSS Section 144 off their shoulders. Instead of leaving victims to fight endless legal battles, the government should create a centralized execution framework inspired by proven global models.
Under this system, a state agency would handle collections, disburse monthly funds, and step in with emergency support if a spouse defaults. The agency would then directly pursue asset seizures or salary attachments. Automating enforcement replaces procedural exhaustion with real government accountability, ensuring court orders deliver actual financial security.
References
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, §§ 12, 18–21, 23, 28–29, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India). Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (India).
Poongodi v. Thangavel, (2013) 10 SCC 618 (India).
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 (India).
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 144, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India)
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, § 20, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India).
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 144, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India)
Social Security Act Title IV-D, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651–669b.
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, c. 6 (UK).
Child Support Act 1991, c. 48 (UK). Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) (Austl.).
Constitution of India**:** India Const. art. 21.
Indian Penal Code (Section 498A): Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 498A, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 125): Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 125, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).